On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:16:43 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:41:16 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

They've owned it (80% rather than just 30%) for a year now, so FSVO
"early". But there are rumours it might be sold to FlyBE.

Oh, dear. Another OKish airline sold to a dire one.


Oh dear. I've just booked Flybe for December. :-(


easyJet not interested?


Probably not interested in a ragbag assortment of tired old aircraft.

"Bruce" wrote in message

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:16:43 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:41:16 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

They've owned it (80% rather than just 30%) for a year now, so FSVO
"early". But there are rumours it might be sold to FlyBE.

Oh, dear. Another OKish airline sold to a dire one.


Oh dear. I've just booked Flybe for December. :-(


easyJet not interested?


Probably not interested in a ragbag assortment of tired old aircraft.

.... which are probably leased anyway.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:27:44 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:
"Bruce" wrote:

Probably not interested in a ragbag assortment of tired old aircraft.

... which are probably leased anyway.


Yes, but the leases don't lapse when a firm is taken over. Unless a
termination is negotiated, at a considerable cost, the leases will
simply be assigned to the new owners and continue to the end of their
terms.

So the condition of the fleet is important, and whether they are owned
or leased, they remain a liability.

"Bruce" wrote in message

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:27:44 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:
"Bruce" wrote:

Probably not interested in a ragbag assortment of tired old
aircraft.

... which are probably leased anyway.


Yes, but the leases don't lapse when a firm is taken over. Unless a
termination is negotiated, at a considerable cost, the leases will
simply be assigned to the new owners and continue to the end of their
terms.

So the condition of the fleet is important, and whether they are owned
or leased, they remain a liability.

So Lufthansa now has those leases. It's not likely that any airline
interested in operating the bmibaby routes would want to use those
particular aircraft to operate them -- they'd be much more likely to
want to use aircraft compatible with the rest of their fleets. So, the
chances are that, even if some of those routes continue to flown by
someone, it won't be those aircraft flying them, nor will the planes be
wearing bmibaby liveries.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:13:36 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:27:44 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:
"Bruce" wrote:

Probably not interested in a ragbag assortment of tired old
aircraft.

... which are probably leased anyway.


Yes, but the leases don't lapse when a firm is taken over. Unless a
termination is negotiated, at a considerable cost, the leases will
simply be assigned to the new owners and continue to the end of their
terms.

So the condition of the fleet is important, and whether they are owned
or leased, they remain a liability.

So Lufthansa now has those leases. It's not likely that any airline
interested in operating the bmibaby routes would want to use those
particular aircraft to operate them -- they'd be much more likely to
want to use aircraft compatible with the rest of their fleets. So, the
chances are that, even if some of those routes continue to flown by
someone, it won't be those aircraft flying them, nor will the planes be
wearing bmibaby liveries.


Conversely, if Lufthansa succeeds in selling bmibaby, it will be a
high priority for Lufthansa to transfer those leases to the buyer as
part of the deal. The new owner of bmibaby, a low cost airline, is
perhaps rather more likely than Lufthansa to have any use for a
clapped out fleet, hopefully with much lower leasing costs than buying
new.

If the leases are not transferred on sale, Lufthansa will rightly
expect a higher price for bmibaby to compensate for the retained
liability of all those leases.

"Bruce" wrote in message


If the leases are not transferred on sale, Lufthansa will rightly
expect a higher price for bmibaby to compensate for the retained
liability of all those leases.

But why would anyone pay any significant amount for bmibaby? Its brand
is worthless and it has no significant assets (such as the valuable
Heathrow slots and more modern aircraft owned by bmi mainline). Any
airline wanting to expand on to its routes is free to do so, and could
probably do it more efficiently than by buying a failing small airline.

It's far more likely that Lufthansa either has to pay someone to take it
away, or just shuts it down. And at least Lufthansa does still operate
similar, but larger, 737-300 and 737-500 fleets. In fact, Lufthansa's
737-300s are on average significantly older than bmi's, so it could
probably use the bmibaby fleet to *upgrade* its own fleet (the oldest
Lufthansa 737 is five years older than the oldest bmibaby one). My
experience of Lufthansa's planes is that they can be very tatty indeed,
so the bmibaby ones may actually be in better condition, too.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:59:47 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message


If the leases are not transferred on sale, Lufthansa will rightly
expect a higher price for bmibaby to compensate for the retained
liability of all those leases.

But why would anyone pay any significant amount for bmibaby? Its brand
is worthless and it has no significant assets (such as the valuable
Heathrow slots and more modern aircraft owned by bmi mainline). Any
airline wanting to expand on to its routes is free to do so, and could
probably do it more efficiently than by buying a failing small airline.

It's far more likely that Lufthansa either has to pay someone to take it
away, or just shuts it down. And at least Lufthansa does still operate
similar, but larger, 737-300 and 737-500 fleets. In fact, Lufthansa's
737-300s are on average significantly older than bmi's, so it could
probably use the bmibaby fleet to *upgrade* its own fleet (the oldest
Lufthansa 737 is five years older than the oldest bmibaby one). My
experience of Lufthansa's planes is that they can be very tatty indeed,
so the bmibaby ones may actually be in better condition, too.


You can try to grind me down as much as you like g, but the problem
of the lease liability remains. There will almost certainly be parent
company guarantees from Lufthansa, so this liability really cannot be
ignored.

In message , at 15:59:47 on
Sat, 17 Oct 2009, Recliner remarked:
Any airline wanting to expand on to its routes is free to do so, and
could probably do it more efficiently than by buying a failing small
airline.

Ironically, BMIbaby has just announced a significant expansion at EMA to
replace many of the routes previously flow by Easyjet (ex BA-Go) from
there, which are being chopped at the end of the year.

But if the EMA-AMS flights are eventually a casualty, it'll
inconvenience me quite a bit. They are always full, but there's not an
obvious replacement carrier unless Flybe does indeed start a hub at EMA
(they fly to AMS from several other UK regional airports).
--
Roland Perry

Recliner wrote:
My
experience of Lufthansa's planes is that they can be very tatty indeed,
so the bmibaby ones may actually be in better condition, too.

Not my experience (primarily Airbus A320 family planes and an occasional
Boeing 737 on MAN-FRA)...
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/